More Pushback From The White House

Now that their own memory expert has resigned, the White House intends to help other people's memory improve.

Developing...

MORE:  The White House Press release includes this from Kerry:

CNN'S LARRY KING: "What about enhancing this war, Senator Kerry. What are your thoughts on going further than Afghanistan, all terrorist places ..."

KERRY: "Oh, I think we clearly have to keep the pressure on terrorism globally. This doesn't end with Afghanistan by any imagination. And I think the president has made that clear. I think we have made that clear. Terrorism is a global menace. It's a scourge. And it is absolutely vital that we continue, for instance, Saddam Hussein." (CNN's "Larry King Live," 12/14/01)

Doesn't anyone want to say, "Gee, some eerily prescient blogger posted that over a year ago"?

We are moving on.  Christopher Hitchens has a brutal beat-down of the do-nothing on Darfur crowd; it can easily be related to Bush and Iraq.

Comments

[p.lukasiak]

Lets see. Levin says that Bush pushed a connection between ....well, between Saddam and Iraq!

Now obviously, what Levin said (or meant to say) was "bin Laden and Iraq" or "Saddam and al Qaeda". So what does the White House do? It quotes Levin about "terrorism" in general as it concerns Iraq.

But, as the White House quotes Levin saying....the issue is what the White House knew, and what it said about what it knew. Its not about Carl Levin, or anyone else in Congress, because Congress did not make the decision to invade Iraq in March 2003. What Congress did in October 2002 was authorize Bush to invade Iraq if necessary based on what was believed to be true in October 2002.

[rob]

All this does is remind us of these famous quotes:
Speaker: Bush, George - President

Date: 6/18/2004
"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.

Date: 6/17/2004
"This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al Qaeda.”

Date: 9/26/2002
"You can't distinguish between al-Qaeda and Saddam.”
Date: 9/17/2003
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties.”

[kim]

Monk is happy to let us know that the grandjury was treated to open skepticism from Fitzpatrick, but fails to mention that the jury of Libby's peers will hear a little skepticism from his defense.
====================================================

[epphan]

Poor Carl Levin ...misunderstood...misquoted...taken out of context...That's not FAIR!

[Rick Ballard]

Sen. Levin needs to put legislation on the floor restoring things to the status quo ante. A 'Saddam Hussein Restoration Act' would at least allow full floor debate so that the Democratic Senators could make the argument that they lacked the necessary intelligence to make a proper decision in October 2002. While everyone knows that these particlular Senators lack the backbone to use force in any situation they should be allowed the opportunity to explain that they never will vote for any bill authorizing the use of force for the balance of thier careers. Unless, of course, it polls well.

A good debate on why the Democrats want to cut and run would be very healthy. Sure, it would encourage al Queada and the Baathist deadenders to continue terrorist attacks on innocents in Iraq and around the world but that is a very small price to pay for the minute and momentary advantage that the Democratic Party might garner at a year from the nest election.

After all, the the families of the American soldiers who will die as a result of the Demoratic Party's tactic and the soldiers themselves would never vote Democrat anyway.

The cost in human lives and suffering in the instance of Iraq would be minimal in comparison the cost borne by the South Vietnamese as a result of the last instance of Democratic legislators abandoning their promises. It's better that the Democrats stab the Iraqis in the back right now and in public than it is to wait any longer.

The American public needs a full debate on Democratic perifidy. It would be very helpful in determing just what level of sedition and cowardice is acceptable in elected officials.

[kim]

I'm afraid for the Democrats that no matter how they portray the Iraqi adventure, it's lead-up, it's aftermath, it's rationale, it's still just gonna look like sour grapes to the average cuppa Joe. And that's just not a great electoral energizer.
==================================

[susan]

Weird that the Democrat Party (once the pride of classical liberalism) today considers the Liberation of oppressed people to be a lie.

Ever since the Democrat Party allowed the progressive Stalinist Left into it's fold some thirty years ago then self-extermined when it was bought by moveon.org and George Soros, the party of FDR is no more. I look at Democrats as the party of Stalin which no longer believes in the goodwill of the American people and wishes to see America fail.

Harsh yes, but the progressive Left is vicious and if they take control, as a Russian friend who formerly lived under serfdom pointed out to me, there will be no place left in the world to escape such tyranny. Europe is almost lost itself to Socialism's decay, we cannot follow their path to extinction.

[JayDee]

It's difficult to imagine a whinier, weaker defense than the one this White House is trying to put up: Blame the Dems! They didn't contest the bogus intelligence we fed them!

I think the last election permanently warped these people into thinking that there is infinite opportunity in lying so aggressively that people end up believing the lies are truth. They are certainly giving fertile fields to anyone who wants to oppose them in coming elections by admitting their incompetence in obtaining accurate intelligence and by opening the floor to having more of their lies debated.

makes short shrift of the incredibly weak WH "pushback", an argument so transparently false one can only assume these politicos truly have no respect whatsoever for the intelligence of American citizens.

The president and his top advisers may very well have sincerely believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. But they did not allow the American people, or even Congress, to have the information necessary to make reasoned judgments of their own. It's obvious that the Bush administration misled Americans about Mr. Hussein's weapons and his terrorist connections.

That's the crux of this argument. That's the only way for the WH to push back, except they can't. If they wanted to make a case for war as a geopolitical adventure engineered by their elitist think tank intellectuals, then THAT was the case they should have made. That would have been honest behavior in an open, enlightened democracy. That they chose instead to mislead, lie and deceive instead is a mistake that will haunt their party, and unfortunately our entire country, for generations. The KNEW what the verdict of the people would be if they had been honest - exactly the one we are arriving at by leaps and bounds now.

[p.lukasiak]

Kim.... Nixon's "Silent Majority" schtick worked because, well, there was a silent majority out there that didn't hold Nixon responsible for Vietnam, and wanted to give his policies a chance.

But that kind of spin won't work in 2005. There is no "majority" that supports Bush's Iraq policies anymore -- and the Iraq debacle is owned by Bush, and Bush alone.

[Dwilkers]

"Weird that the Democrat Party (once the pride of classical liberalism) today considers the Liberation of oppressed people to be a lie."

These are weird times it seems. The two poles of political thought have come together in a weird sort of alignment, the ultra far left and the ultra far right say similar things about foreign policy nowadays, caused by some sort of political gravity disturbance of enormous force.

My personal opinion is that the left can't see the war in Iraq for the classic liberal war it is because they are blinded by Bush hate. I've been scratching my head over that one for a couple years now and that's the only logical answer I can come up with.

[kim]

Jay Dee, and p.l. why can't you understand what Susan and Dwilkers so clearly do?

Go read what Iraqis have to say about self-determination.
Go read what liberalism has had to say about self-determination.

Now wake up before BDS destroys our two party system.
=======================================

[Sue]

Jay Dee,

You are working off the wrong assumption. You assume Bush is hiding a 'BIG LIE'. He isn't placing blame on anyone, just reminding them of their own words. Bush believed at the time Saddam had WMDs. So did the democrats. He is merely reminding them.

[TexasToast]

Seems to me that all of this "push back" is blaming the customer who bought the swampland rather than blaming the salesman. GWB won the best Producer prize (a trip to WallyWorld in Iraq) by trumpeting the beach access and hiding the fact that building a vacation home would require 20 foot piles and that there was no flood insurance available. Now that the water is rising, he is blaming the customer for buying the sales pitch. "It is highly irresponsible to rewrite history by actually reading the prospectus that we never provided. You can only talk about the brochure! The brochure clearly says you have beach access!"

Remember the scene in Animal House?
"You bleeped up. You trusted us!"

[kim]

There is an extremely small minority of Iraqis who are not ecstatic over their new beach house, TT, and they didn't invite you over to snipe.
======================================

[Gary Maxwell]

Hey you dense pointy headed liberals ( you know who you are)

Bush is not trying to convince you morons, he knows you are hopeless cases who drink whatever far left lib koolAid Soros stirs up and puts in front of you.

No he is speaking to independents and folks who dont ever visit the DUmp and could care less what Media Matters thinks about anything. And he is reaching them and they will listen and read the Dems prior quotes and reach their own conclusion.

Since consevatives start out as a larger % of the population that lib, if they get 1/2 od independents they have a strong majority.

What really chaps you is that Bush has started to use his bully pulpit effectively. Your MSM lackeys and watercarriers can only do so much, and his meesage is getting out and will continue to get out.

Go find me some more Repub quotes that I wont read. Neither will the Independents BTW as you little pissants dont have the President ability to command the stage and get the message out.

Kinda sucks to be a lib dont it?

[JayDee]

I'm not familiar with "classic liberal wars" that have been fought in the past....like, ever. Can you give some examples, Dwilkers? If we're looking for oppressed people to free and uplift, seems we might have started in Africa to better effect. Not that we really give a hoot about "oppressed" people in non-oilrich nations, though.

We're watching a split screen in DC politics right now. While Bush is taking potshots at his fellow Americans from our common military base, right before embarking on an Asian trip, saying in effect "I didn't mislead, they misfollowed! Wah!"...back in Congress, the the Repubs are signing onto Dem IDEAS right and left...Not only are they stealing the Dem plans for timed withdrawals, but little Lindsay Graham has caved on pub efforts to further Sovietize Gitmo and is backing McCain's anti-torture policies.

Some pushback. Bush looks lonelier, and weaker, every day.

[The Unbeliever]

Mistaken analogy, TT. Bush is saying that he bought the same swampland, sight unseen, based on the same brochure the Dems had. Now Bush is simply pointing out that everyone involved bought the same land based on the same brochure, so it's silly for half the purchasers to complain.

And naturally, I'd object to the likening of Iraq as an inescapable swampland, given the progress that we've been making, but that's an oft-fought argument for another time.

[p.lukasiak]

My personal opinion is that the left can't see the war in Iraq for the classic liberal war it is because they are blinded by Bush hate. I've been scratching my head over that one for a couple years now and that's the only logical answer I can come up with.

The only "blindness" here is your own -- like most righties, you can't even comprehend the view of the left, and have to ascribe it to "Bush hatred".

"The left" recognized this war for what it was: Not some 'war of liberation', but a war of conquest---call it imperialism, or colonialism, or whatever. One need only look at what the US tried to do initially with the Iraqi economy (basically, sell the whole thing off to the highest bidders) and the Iraqi political system (appoint a bunch of emigres with extremely close ties to the American neo-con establishment to run things, and resist all efforts to hold representative elections) to see that the left's perception of this war was accurate.

[JayDee]

Except it isn't true, Unbeliever, that everyone saw the same brochure. Richard Kerr, a former deputy director of central intelligence, said in 2003 that there was "significant pressure on the intelligence community to find evidence that supported a connection" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The C.I.A. ombudsman told the Senate Intelligence Committee that the administration's "hammering" on Iraq intelligence was harder than he had seen in his 32 years at the agency Dissenting opinions were sanitized. Rumors were augmented into facts. It was truly shameful, and Bush isn't going to succeed pulling the wool over people's eyes this time. People have some pride after all. It was embarassing enough the way we all ran around like scared ninnies after 9/11 and let these amoral power grubbers run roughshod over our democracy. It's bad enough that we're destroying Iraq in order to save it. I don't think we're going to get a national consensus that we should also destroy our own democracy in order to "spread" it elsewhere.

[p.lukasiak]

Go read what Iraqis have to say about self-determination.

Kim, I've been reading what the Iraqis have been saying about self-determination for years

And I have followed the US efforts to prevent the Iraqi people from holding elections -- until Bush's hand was forced.

And I've seen the US try to sell off Iraq to the highest bidder and impose a far-right wing inspired economic system that would have eliminated any hope of economic self-determination for the Iraqi people.

Unlike you, and Sue, and Dwilkers, and the rest of your wingnut cabal, I don't just base my opinions on GOP talking points. I watch what HAPPENS.

[p.lukasiak]

Mistaken analogy, TT. Bush is saying that he bought the same swampland, sight unseen, based on the same brochure the Dems had. Now Bush is simply pointing out that everyone involved bought the same land based on the same brochure, so it's silly for half the purchasers to complain.

this "swampland" analogy is actually not bad. Bush's efforts to sell this war had all the hallmarks of a real estate scam. But Bush wasn't "just another duped investor", he was the lead investor who went around and sold the project to other gullible investors.

[cathyf]

So, to take a little break for some Blog Triumphalism -- you think somebody in the white house is taking advantage of their broadband connection to get some ammunition?

cathy :-)

[kim]

The left's perception of this war is inaccurate. They still think of the terrorists as a legitimate insurgency rather than criminals they are, and they still buy the Moorian vision that Bush is only in this for the oil.

And look what the indigenous political process has done, it's put an expatriot with ties to neocons in a position of great power. Against the wishes of at least one dunce in Washington who'd had his home invaded.
==================================================

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

The argument Monk is making about Libby is a perfect 'perjury trap' defense.

As to the White House memory refreshers, it's great, but they have to sustain it. Day after day after day.... Until it's background noise for the American people.

And, they ought to do the same thing to Mary Mapes who is currently getting a respectful hearing on numerous TV shows and in newspapers about the Nat'l Guard memoes.

[Gary Maxwell]

No actually its a good thing that Mapes is out there. Its so easy to know that the memos are forgeries that she can get any traction. But by sticking to her story she reminds people why they should not trust the media, and her performance is strangely similar to several national Democrats. Since the media and the Dems are so colosely aligned perhaps that is to be expected.

But in keeping with me prior point, the Independents are getting a good dose of what they need to make an informed decision.

Really really really sucks to be a Dem.

[susan]

Example of a classical liberal wars would be World War II and Korea, neither of which were oil rich nations. Of course, Vietnam is the prime example of what happens when totalitarian Stalinists allowed tyranny to win.

The only act of Imperialism to come out of America are the Eco-Imperialists who force and bully through international legislation the eco-imperialist idea that third world countries must never be permitted to partake of revolutionary technology. Eco-imperialists have colonized the world to remain in a primative state of helplessness, despair, poverty, misery and all things under serfdom.

[JayDee]

Day after day after day.... Until it's background noise for the American people.

I love it when Pubs come out in the open with their admiration for "catapulting the propaganda". It's not a free, open democracy of educated citizens they seek to build, but a nation of dumbfounded sheep, looking for leaders to protect them from irrational fears.

They aren't looking for a national dialogue or debate. They fear that, which is why they have the President attacking his fellow Americans from a US Army base, before hightailing off to China. But if you want to see where the AMerican people still have power - look at what's happening in the Senate, with Pubs "borrowing" ideas from the supposedly idea-free Dems, and agreeing to their demands that our anti terrorism policies not be allowed to turn us into a mockery of American principles. These guys have constituencies to answer to, unlike Bush, and it is most instructive to see how they are breaking with him now. No to drilling in Anwar. No to indefinite suspension of habeas corpus. No to breaking the backs of the poor even further to give more taxcuts to the top 1%. And yes to a timed withdrawal. There may be hope for us yet, with all these pubs starting to see the light.

[Syl]

What the desparate Dems here do not understand is that the intelligence was wrong.

It doesn't matter if each and every Democrat in America looked at each and every piece of intel, the intel was still wrong, and they would have had to come to the same conclusion that Bush did.

That doesn't mean they all would vote for war, it just means that the intel would still show what it did. And they would have no way of knowing the intel was wrong unless we went to war.

[Syl]

JayDee

You could learn a lot from Hitchens. Give reading him a try some time.

[Rick Ballard]

I think we all remember Howlin' Howies illustrious start as DNC chair. He promised that his amazing internet fund raising (actually Joe Trippi's) would replace the union money that the CFR eliminated. In order to justify his claim he spent the first five months making irresponsible statements that played well with the delusional left but pushed the center away. He raised a little dough but nothing like what the unions could have provided through their legal extortion racket. Finally, elected officials told Howie to put a sock in it because he was causing more damage than the money he raised was worth. Plus his net return was (and still is) really lousy. The party is now very low on dough and things aren't getting better. The Democrat rent seeking constituency has never provided any money - they have to be paid to even vote. The union members are still being extorted by the unions and have never been in the habit of making contributions and the centrists don't much care for the direction the party is taking so they are sitting on their wallets.

Which leaves the loony left as the only obvious source of funds - and they demand their pound of flesh prior to writing checks.

If you look at what the Dems are doing as performing unnatural acts for money it is much more understandable than it is as a political tactic. They know that a drawdown is coming and they know that looking backwards and focusing on the past is not a smart political move.

But, at heart, they're prostitutes in need of money and the only paying customer that they can attract at the moment demands an antiwar stance. They'll drop this by March and try and pretend that they never heard of it. If the Republicans let them.

[kim]

So, p.l., if you are watching what happens then you know that Sistani, despite betrayal by a coalition in 1991, gauged our intention correctly this time, at least after Summer, '04, and in concert with other Shia and with Kurds, and now increasingly with the Sunni, is leading his country to a future they and we, and even you, can applaud.

You also know that against lengthening odds, the Master of the Bazaar is running a masterful race for the roses. And those are what is coming up in Iraq.

I'm reminded of the story of the queen who daily fed bread to the poor against the wishes of the king. One day he caught her with an apronful on the way to the back gate. He demanded to know what was in her apron. She replied 'roses'. He insisted on looking, and lo, there were roses.

These so called progressives want to starve the Iraqis need for nourishing their own destiny; and they can't believe it's coming up roses for Bush, and the Iraqis. God, it must gall.
============================================

[Tulsan]

The White House made the decision to invade Iraq LONG BEFORE it had the so-called evidence about: aluminum tubes, yellowcake, mobile labs, drones, and connections between Saddam and al-Queda ... the only purpose of presenting this "evidence" was to get support for a decision that had already been made - support in the form of a resolution from Congress, a UN resolution and public approval.

So the question is not how this "intelligence" was used in the decision to go to war, as it played no role in that decision ... but instead how this information was packaged and presented. This has never been formally investigated ... but of course the White House pretends that it has been investigated ... and wants this entire embarrassing discussion to just go away.

[Dwilkers]

I had no idea the concept would be so upsetting to you two - have you guys been up all night or something? It really isn't complicated, and it certainly wasn't intended to be insulting. I suppose the underlying philosophical point wasn't clear.

* Liberal -- (having or demonstrating belief in the essential goodness of man and the autonomy of the individual; favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority)

* Liberate -- release, unloose, unloosen, loose -- (grant freedom to; free from confinement) set free -- (grant freedom to)

Bush believes that this is a war of cultures. The culture of Western Liberal Secular Democracy vs. the culture of Despotism Islamofacism. Liberalism is the underlying rational for this war. Bush believes that by introducing secular liberal democracy into the ME the US will kill the roots of terrorism. I wouldn't have thought that basic point was in dispute among people that observe this at the level of depth of people posting here.

You know, as in 1) Western: the western hemisphere; Liberal: Freedom; Secular: unrelated to religion; democracy: the will of the governed.

Maybe he's right, maybe he's wrong, but that's what he thinks. I wouldn't have thought the definition of liberal was in dispute - although the application is today's times might be.

It a perfect example of a war fought to liberate an opressed people.

[Syl]

Tulsan

Of the list you presented:

Yellowcake: 1999
Saddam and al Qaeda connections? read the indictment against bin laden: 1998

Aluminum tubes, mobile labs, drones, were just icing.

9/11- 78% of Americans believed Saddam had something to do with it on 9/13.

[richard mcenroe]

Now there's a Visual Aid

[kim]

Oh boy, do I hope they try to rehabilitate Mapes and hang as much hope on her as they did on Wilson. Johnson's little superimposition trick is susceptible to mass distribution, easy comprenhension, and the advantage that a picture has over a thousand words.

Flicker on, my little bit of shimmer.
Flashin' beacon, Burkett's shit is stinkin'.
For the willfully blind it's only a glimmer.
=================================================

[susan]

So Jaydee
You've spoken of the Bush term as having pulled the wool over our eyes. Ok, got your point that you believe Bush lied.

Now, can you give a reasonable explaination for all the events which occurred over the past decade which led to the reason why Bush's had no choice but to remove Saddam?

How do you explain the no-fly zones? Or, the billions it cost the US to help the UN caontain Saddam? How do you explain the oil-for-food theif? How do you explain the starvation of the Iraqi people? How do you explain the torture, the rape-rooms, the genocide?

How do you explain a decade of UN inspectors being unable to inspect Iraq's weapons program without intrusion from Saddam? How do you explain that every nation involved in containing Saddam over the last decade all believed Saddam was a threat to the free world?

How do you explain the validity of George Galloway and Joe Wilson?

Telling a Liberated people their lives were just a lie is a pathetic way of showing your humanity.

[Florence Schmieg]

Do some of you ever read anything but the blogs? There is a biography of Tony Blair that came out last year by a respected British journalist. In it are reports of conversations between Blair and Bill Clinton. They discussed the imperative need to get Saddam Hussein out of power!! Years before George Bush became president. This was American policy under a Democratic administration and after 9-11 needed to be acted upon. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

[kim]

Dwilkers: Liberals, progressives, Democrats, they all have a tremendous paradox to deal with and you've outlined it well. So far they are dealing with it by refusing to accept the reality that is a free Iraq. They have also fallen prey to that greedy Palestinian's victimazation ploy.

It's all deliciously delusional. I do hope, for the sake of all of us, that they pull out of this unconscious power dive before they crash their vehicle into our monumental two-party system and fireball it into the ground.
===================================================

[Gary Maxwell]

Florence

Of course you are correct. The stated policy of the Clinton administration was "Regime Change." They did not mean change as in personality transformation either.

[kim]

Arafat, that's him, roasting in Hell as we speak, thank God. Even Allah is pissed at his thievery.
===========================================

[Marcel]

Syl, Yesterday you were criticizing polling methodology, today you are quoting poll numbers.

[Syl]

Marcel

The number could be off by a few points (what I was criticizing the polls for) but that's not the point.

The point is that the American people already believed Saddam had something to do with 9/11.

[Marcel]

And now the American believe they have been lied to, if you accept the polls.

[Syl]

I wonder who the Democrats are going to fire over pushing a 'Bush Lied' meme. This is going to turn into the biggest fiasco their party has seen in a long long time.

I wonder who it is they'll torch.

[Marcel]

Fiasco for whom?

[Syl]

Marcel

Hang on to those polls that show Americans think 'Bush lied'. Frame them. Put them on your wall.

The polls they be a changin' soon.

[kim]

Yes, Syl, and less so as the run-up to the war progressed. Even more delusionary these latter day soothsayers memory. The American people were less convinced of a connection between Saddam and al Qaeda, but still sure that Saddam needed dealing with. Truly, Bill just teased us all through the '90's.
=======================================

[JayDee]

Susan, I'm an American. I care about THIS country, MY country. I care about the subversion of OUR democracy. When we become a perfect nation, with unlimited financial resources, then maybe we can put it to a VOTE if the American people would like to take on the mission of perfecting the rest of the world. And we can ask them where they'd like to start - maybe in Africa, where the oppression and suffering makes the lot of the Iraqi people under Saddam look like a piece of cake.

I know it's a cute little argument to pretend that the Republican base is interested in the welfare of the Iraqi people, which is quite a jarring contrast to the virulent anti-Muslim bigotry so often encountered in real life conversations with Bushies. But it's really only one of your revolving door rationales. Sometimes it's our national defense, sometimes it's our energy needs, sometimes it's liberation of oppressed people, sometimes it's not backing down, sometimes it's kicking ass.

Arianna Huffington had a little Dinner with Ahmad, who had this to say about our "liberation": "American soldiers," he said, "are breaking into people's homes and are arresting and detaining Iraqi citizens without charges. Even if they run over an Iraqi and kill him they will not be charged with a crime, because they are above Iraqi law." He also is rooting for the Dems to investigate the misuse of Iraqi funds and basically would like to sign our Armed Forces up as his country's personal police force.

The simple, undeniable FACT is that if Bush TRULY invaded Iraq to liberate the Iraqi people then he had the obligation to make that case to the American people and their representtives. He did not. He tacked that on to his mushroom cloud nightmares and his 9/11 fearmongering. That is how he perverted our democracy and that is how history will report it.

[kim]

Marcel, something you and apparently way to many Democratic strategists imply is that Saddam should not have been dealt with. Joe Average understands that that is lunacy. So bay on. You'll quit when you get lonely, or the moon sets, whichever comes first.

I expect renewed yapping before the Blue Moon.
=================================================